Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
The last mile problem has nothing to do with net neutrality, but there's that bogeyman again.
|
That is where history screams false.
DSL was available in 1981. Why no DSL (or other broadband) in 1990? The last mile. Net neutrality did not exist. Even Isenberger (chief scientist in the Bell Labs) in 1990 was silenced for openly stating, "The internet is coming". The last mile provider historically have stifled innovation when net neutrality did not exist.
Clinton passed the Federal Communication Act. That forced last mile providers to provide broadband (that law also put numbers to the definition of broadband). Suddenly Verizon, AT&T and others were forced to provide broadband internet due to something called free market competition. Suddenly stifled innovations from the Silicon Valley were liberated because net neutrality was the law.
How to get bigger campaign contributions? Michael Powell (an extremist) started attacking net neutrality. We should be paying $20 monthly for the Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, et al internet. People in other countries with free market access pay that little when free market competition and innovation exists. We pay $50 (or higher) due to what Michael Powell did not 2003 to harm net neutrality.
You should have access to at least five internet providers. We all only have two. Cell phones are not the topic. We are discussing full feature, unrestricted internet access.
We know from history beyond doubt that the last mile providers have and are a greatest restriction to innovation and free market competition. Paragraph one makes that obvious. Restricting bit rate is part of a larger program to enrich and protect a few large providers. To destroy more net neutrality.
We know companies such as Comcast even bought software to subvert or block services they did not want on their networks (ie Bittorrent, Skype). Net neutrality enabled the FCC to expose and stop that. Last mile provider must destroy net neutrality - to make that and other 'profit increaser' possible. Profits should only increase with innovation - not service restrictions. Profits created by innovation occur when free markets are enabled by net neutrality.
Comcast is making so much money (due to alsmost no competition) as to build three largest buildings in Philadelphia, buy NBC, buy Universal Studios, and almost buy a major cell phone company. They already have a monopoly (actually a duopoly) in their phone, internet, and cable markets. Many people are now paying over $150 per month for the service. Obstruction of monopolies, of higher prices, and of stifled innovation is net neutrality.
We were denied internet access by last mile providers for almost 15 years. Last mile providers are why net neutrality laws were created. Only net neutrality liberated the internet, encourages free market competition (lower prices), and promotes innovation. Monopolies (or duopolies) stifle competition to enrich the top management and their elite friends. Enemy of monopolies is net neutrality.
UT describes good service where more net neutrality still exists. He forgets why we were denied internet for about 15 years - until net neutrality liberated the internet from 'we hate to innovate' and 'we are THE phone company' last mile providers.